Opinion
S212038
01-10-2018
MERRIMAN (JUSTIN JAMES) ON H.C.
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied (AA)
This petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court on July 15, 2013, before the effective date of Proposition 66, the “Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act of 2016.” (See Briggs v. Brown et al. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808, 862, rehg. den. Oct. 25, 2017.) Under section 1509, subdivision (g) of the Penal Code, the court exercises its authority to retain this petition and decide it.
The petition is denied. All claims are denied on the merits.
In addition, procedural bars apply to some claims, or subparts of claims, as follows:
Claim One: The following portion of the claim alleging that the prosecutor abused his charging discretion by including in the indictment charges other than the crimes associated with the capital murder is procedurally barred under In re Waltreus (1965) 62 Cal.2d 218, 225 (Waltreus) because it was raised and rejected on appeal: ¶ 16.
The following portions of the claim alleging the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing argument at the guilt phase are procedurally barred under In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756, 759 (Dixon) because they are based solely on the record and should have been raised on appeal: ¶¶ 8.c., 17.
Claim Five: The following portion of the claim alleging juror misconduct is procedurally barred under Waltreus, supra: ¶ 3.
The following portion of the claim alleging the underrepresentation of Hispanics in the jury pools of Ventura County is forfeited under In re Seaton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 199-200 because petitioner could and should have made part of the trial record the evidence on which this portion of the claim is based: ¶ 2.
Claim Eight: Except to the extent it alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, the claim is procedurally barred under Dixon, supra.
Claim Ten: The following portion of the claim alleging the trial court erred in not declaring a doubt regarding petitioner's competency to stand trial is procedurally barred under Dixon, supra: ¶ 10.
Claim Twelve: The following portion of the claim alleging that the trial court's excusal of two prospective jurors on the basis of their death penalty views is procedurally barred under Waltreus, supra: ¶ 3.d.